Drawing upon Foucault's discussion of the panopticon, think critically about your online behaviors. In what ways to you self-surveil your online activities in case someone is watching?
As new forms of media come out, the world becomes more and more of an immense panopticon system. With the inventions of surveillance technologies such as the camera, those in control no longer need the ominous watchtower looming over our shoulder although we still most definitely feel its presence. Nor do we need to be separated into our individual open-ceiling cells, but our activities have become more open than ever.
Most everyone already knows of the erase history feature for erasing tracks of your activity, but this only protects yourself from those prying into your privacy from the inside: your family, your friends, etc. Still, even this method is not absolutely guaranteed to keep your behavior private.
From the outside, our activities are unconcealable from the authorities. We can only hope for that opportune moment when the guards decide to leave the tower or we can hope to go unnoticed by blending in with the rest of the prisoners. For most of us, illegal activity over the internet is pretty easy to get by with. The police force hired by the king often neglects the petty crimes so prevalent in the general public.
We are fortunate that the government has not decided to lay down the iron fist on our control of the internet. The panopticon could very well become a reality such as in those numerous novels of dystopia with mass censureship and control. Although by the very nature of the internet, it cannot become a perfect panopticon; it can still exert a great power over all internet users. Like schools, hosptials, and factories, the internet has the possibility of becoming a prison as well.
I thought that the concept of the panopticon was interesting, and actually quite accurate with regard to the Internet today. As Foucault says, "... power should be visible and unverifiable. Visible: the inmate will constantly have before his eyes the tall outline of the central tower from which he is spied upon. Unverifiable: the inmate must never know whether he is being looked at at any one moment, but he must be sure that he may always be so." We all know that outside companies, the government, etc. watch our movements online; for example, the advertisements that show up on web pages we frequently visit are tailored to meet our interests based on the websites we visit. This obviously shows that where we go on the Internet, what we do can be and is monitored by outside sources, whether we realize it or not.
As Cody pointed out, there is of course the option to erase your browsing history and cookies from your individual computer, but this only protects you from eyes who have access to your computer. Of course, everyone who uses the Internet is always told, "Don't put personal information online". However, I can't help but feel that because I use the Internet, my personal information can be found by an outside entity (such as the government) if they have the tools to find it: of course, this doesn't change the fact that most of us still don't publish personal information online in an attempt to remain as anonymous as possible.
I think it's really interesting to relate an old architectural design to the new media of the internet. However, this relation fits. We are constantly told to "be careful" about what we put online, and many of us are wary to give our social security number or credit card information without knowing at least a little bit about who we're giving it to. Why? Well, we've had our discussion about government and new media, and we've had our discussion about hackers... The reason we are cautious about what we put online is because we are never sure who will end up with our private information. We are always wary of that "watchful eye" because nobody really knows when it's watching.
Personally, I try to never give out my age, address, or full name unless it is required for a legitimate purpose. I also never post anything that will incriminate me or make me look bad in any way. This carries over into the physical world in that I strive to never do anything that could be perceived as damaging to my character so that other people cannot post this information. For example: the Dirty.
The use of social networking websites, especially Facebook, is a great example of the Panopticon system. I am friends with my father on Facebook and because of this I feel that my relationship with facebook supports the Panopticon system. It seems as though I am the inmate and my father is watching from the center tower. Foucault mentions that, “power should be visible and unverifiable”. This is exactly how I feel on Facebook knowing that my father could be monitoring my every move. I feel like the inmate when I can see that my father is online, but I can’t exactly see what he is doing. I can’t see what or whose profile he is looking at. Also, I am not always sure when my father is observing me; it is unverifiable. He does, however, have the potential to see everything that I do. So because of this I am careful and hesitant as to what I put online. I don’t want to post anything I wouldn’t want my dad reading or seeing. In agreement with Foucault, my actions and behaviors are different because I feel like my dad, the “tower”, is constantly watching me.
Furthermore, my actions online can be seen to even more people of the outside word. I know that when you Google my name, my Twitter page pops up. This means that anybody and everybody has access to what I put on my profile. In fact, someone could view parts of my profile without me or anybody else knowing it. Just like Foucault says, “one is totally seen, without ever seeing…..one sees everything without ever being seen.” So knowing that anybody could be watching, I must be careful of what online activities I become involved in.
Online security is questionable and I think all of us can admit that we tend to be cautious when putting our personal information online. There are definitely ways of attempting to conceal our identities and online activities, but hacking is always an option. I know my dad always taught me a way of deleting all my previous actions online by going to the tool bar and pressing "delete browsing history." The effectiveness is questionable, however it is a security blanket for some people and therefore we do it. I especially do it after checking my online banking information, which is highly risky, in my opinion. Facebook, twitter, and myspace are all social networking sites that most of us put barely, if any real information that could allow someone to find out too much information. There is no doubt that security breaches happen and all of us do several things to attempt to secure our information, or just conceal some personal information. We all hear the horror stories about people finding others through online sources and committing terrible actions.
Lena made a valid point about her father and facebook and relating it to the idea of the Panopticon. I, thankfully, do not have a father or mother that has a facebook, however I definitely monitor what is on my facebook for other people, such as my aunt or employers. As is said with the idea of the Panopticon metaphorically, as an "inmate," people can in a sense "spy from the central tower." This definitely relates to not only offline, such as the government, phone lines, etc, but also online.
First off, I was completely fascinated by the panopticon, I was in awe of the idea of it as well as terrified. The idea that one is observing me without me knowing of it has come to mind more than once. The idea that the observer can observe without the subject knowing is a creepy concept to say the least and is the core of the panopticon. I thought about it all the time after watching Jim Carrey’s movie, The Truman Show. Although it is not a prison, the man character in the movie is filmed without his consent or knowledge. Another thing that came to mind while reading Foucault’s discussion of the panopticon was George Orwell’s book about censorship, 1984. In the book, the citizens of the Utopia are closely watched 24/7 without the citizens being aware of it. They know that they are being watched but they do not know where or how it is possible. In the story, each citizen is required to have a closed-circuit television in their homes. This TV is controlled by the thought police to watch the citizens. At any moment a person can be observed though the telescreen but whether they are being watched or not is unknown to that person. Say that was implemented today, people would not complain because they would be unaware of it. I would like to say that I am cautious online but not as cautious as I should be. I remember when Myspace first got big, my mother forbid me to have one because she had heard all of the horror stories that come along with one. Finally she caved in and said I couldn’t have a photo online but that I could have a site. I completely ignored her and got on my first social networking site unaware of who is out there watching me. As I got older I understood my mom’s concern and cracked down on the information I let out to the public. I set my sites to private and never listed my hometown. I also don’t put up pictures that would be deemed inappropriate (not like I have any in the first place, but still). Now being in college, jobs and other opportunities might be looking at my page without me knowing about it, this is why I keep the red cup pictures to a minimum. Yet like someone said before me, this carries out into the physical world, my mother always told me to behave, not because it is the right thing to do but because people are always watching.
As I was reading, I realized that I had never really questioned the idea of a panopticon idea when working online. Although I have obviously been aware of the access of others to whatever information I release, the panopticon idea is a new way of considering this "machine which, whatever use one may wish to put it to, produces homogenous effects of power" (202). Personally, I have taken simple precautions as many students have mentioned, including the use of privacy settings on facebook and restricting the amount of personal information I give out to unfamiliar organizations. That is simply a rule for the online and physical world, knowing that after releasing this information, it is nearly impossible to control where it may end up. Something I have considered specifically when working online is what I post in status updates, pictures, and comments, even though I do have my profile on private. Now that my grandma and aunt have created profiles, I think about their response before I write something. I never allow questionable pictures to be taken of me now that employers look at profiles as well. What I found new and interesting about the panopticon was the visible and unverifiable aspects that Rebecca defined earlier. An outside power is present and watching, but specific actions and locations of the power are unknown. I like the explanation by Foucault: “…one is totally seen, without ever seeing; in the central tower, one sees everything without ever being seen” (202).
Foucault wrote that the “effect of the Panopticon” is that it induces “state of conscious and permanent visibility.” The idea that this observation is “permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its action” really frustrates me. It almost induces a sense of paranoia – I really dislike the idea of being watched, but not knowing WHEN I’m being watched.
Then, on page 202, Foucault said, “He who is subjected to a field of visibility, and who knows it, assumes responsibility for the constraints of power; he makes them play spontaneously upon himself.” I found this to be true – the internet poses this “field of visibility,” and I “assume responsibility” and “constrain” myself, restricting the information I let out. One way that I self-surveil online is by using false names. I rarely use my own name, even then I almost never include my entire name. I make up weird names that I can barely remember. For example, for one of my gmail accounts, I gave myself the name I_<3_Trogdor. I also self-surveil in terms of pictures. Several years ago, when I first got my FaceBook account, I was looking for a profile picture, and the first picture of me that I came across on my computer was not a bad picture of me, but apparently my parents, who found the picture a year or so later when they joined FaceBook, thought the picture was scandalous. They taught me to be more careful about what I post online, picturewise, because of online predators and the like. In both cases, because of this “permanent visibility” I watch what I put online about myself, which, according to Foucault, should “assure the automatic functioning of power.” I find that this is also correct - through filtering what I put online, I can function more smoothly, by slipping past with my anonymous label. My ability to work online isn’t inhibited by anything, and if I were to apply for a job, no inappropriate pictures would ruin my chances for getting hired, for no such pictures are to be found.
Unlike Julia, who seems to self-surveil quite well, I can't really say that I engage in a lot of my own self-surveillance while on the Internet. I am definitely careful about who I give my full name, credit card #s, etc. to. However, I have a Facebook and a Twitter account (which both show up on a Google search of my name), and I do order lots of stuff online, trusting that what I'm doing is safe. This article by Foucault actually made me think about my actions on the Internet and the idea behind the Panopiticon, in which the major effect is "to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power." This idea is something quite scary to me, and I can't say that the Internet has induced this in me (or at least not well enough). Sometimes when I'm on the Internet I take on the naive persona, who believes that nothing bad will ever actually happen to me. Reading this article though, I think it might make me a little more cautious on the Internet, considering that there is constantly someone who may or may not be watching me.
Everyone has previously made a reference to Bentham's principle which says that "power should be visible and unverifiable," and I think this is true in terms of the Internet being its own kind of Panopticon. We have all learned about being careful in terms of what information we give out online, but even taking precautions (i.e. not putting my phone number on Facebook), I still feel like those who understand the Internet and have the so-called "power" could get into our systems anyway and figure out this kind of information.
The main difference that I see between the Panopticon and the Internet, is that by entering the Internet, we are making the conscious decision to be online, knowing that potentially everything we do may be watched by someone else. I feel like the way the Panopticon is described for prisoners, schoolchildren, and "inmates" as they are often called, is referring to the Panopticon as being a "disciplinary mechanism" in order to use power to make these inmates do what those in power want them to do, or behave how they want them to. I do not feel like this is the case with the Internet. While we are inmates to those who have the power to see what we're doing, we are being disciplined to work a certain way within the realm of the Internet, but we have choices, and whether or not we choose to engage in activities that could result in us being punished, is up to us.
I also think it is interesting that a model that uses "strict spatial partitioning" is used as a parallel to the Internet, something that has brought people closer together than they have ever been before. Kind of ironic...
In some cases, I am very careful with my online activity. On Facebook, for example, I've created a list of specific people who can't view my photos, wall comments, etc. I've heard horror stories of employers turning down potential employees because of the content on their Facebook pages. I do, essentially, "assume responsibility for the constraints of power," as I realize that I am "subjected to a field of visibility" (202). However, I take practically no safety measures when I shop online. As long as the site has a fancy little "Secure" icon, I'm set to shop. I've disclosed my credit card number numerous times, and given out my address/phone number an uncountable number of times.
While it is true that the makers of ad campaigns, the government, hackers, etc. are portrayed as powerful because of the Panopticon, it is interesting to note how the average Joe benefits from the Panopticon as well. Just as we hide information from ad campaigns and in turn indicate that such a campaign is powerful, so do random Facebook users set up their profile as private to hide information from the average Joe. Joe is, then, viewed as "powerful" by these random profiles and the Panoptic system. For the random profiles, for whatever reason, view Joe as a powerful figure capable of bringing them harm or inconvenience with use of their personal information. However, in my mind, this so-called "power" handed to Joe by the Panopticon is anything but useful. It seems that such power only inspires people to be more cautious and conscious of the watchtower that spies over them.
As Foucault stated, "The panoptic schema, without disappearing as such or losing any fits properties, was destined to spread throughout the social body; its vocation was to become a generalized function (Foucault, 207)". Although the idea of the panoptic is alarming at first, it is apparent that it has in fact infiltrated many of today's social interactions, with an emphasis on those related to the internet. Like others who commented before, I had not thought of Foucault's idea of a "disciplinary mechanism" and its relationship with the internet prior to reading his piece. Much like Gretchen stated in her blog post, I often take on a naive persona as well when using the internet, assuming that whatever I'm doing is safe from online predators and the like. However, after reading today's assigned readings, my self-awareness in terms of my online activity has definitely been heightened.
Like others also stated, I believe myself to be quite safe in terms of the sharing of my personal information online. When distributing personal information such as a credit card number, address, telephone number, or social security number, I always check the site to see whether or not it is secure as well as its credibility. To me, these things are common sense, but Foucault's piece made me realize that anything I do online may be watched by someone I never have or will meet in my life. It reminded me of news stories after the invention of wireless networks, involving predators sitting outside peoples' houses, hacking into their network and observing their internet activity and accessing their personal information without them ever knowing. Because most of my internet activity involves social networking sites such as Facebook, I am used to limiting my personal information and utilizing privacy settings for my profile. When I first began using Facebook, I was inclined the add people as friends that I did not know very well, but nowadays unless I truly know a person, I do not add them as a Facebook friend. Photos on Facebook are also a concern when I'm online, so I make sure to only allow my "friends" to be able to view the photos I post. I also use online banking, which is probably one of the most trusting activities one can do online, seeing as that information can change a life if put into the wrong hands. I am always careful to make sure that I am using a secured wireless network, for instance, UAPublic allows anyone to access your online activity, while every other UA network is secured.
Overall, I would say that my internet use has been a very careful and prudent one thus far. I try to be as careful as possible when I post critical personal information, but Foucault's idea of the penopticon, where a mass group can be observed unknowingly opened my eyes o the possibility of my online activity being watched. I don't feel as though I have anything to hide, but I am grateful that I have more of a watchful eye over who I talk to and what I participate in online.
I thought that the idea of the panopticon was extremely interesting- never knowing if you were being watched, but always knowing that it was possible. It is a nightmare for any semi-paranoid person. As soon as I read the blog question, I immediately thought of facebook. When I first got a facebook in high school, I could post anything I wanted without worrying about who would see it. As time went on, I became friends with my cousins (who would love to tell their parents if I posted anything I shouldn’t), parents of kids I used to babysit, parents I work as a nanny for over the summer, my mom, and my aunt. Ever since that began happening, I started thinking twice every time I updated my status or posted something on a friend’s wall. I get facebook notifications on my phone, and every time I receive one saying that I was tagged in a photo, I immediately go online on my phone to make sure that it’s a photo I would be okay with my relatives seeing. I don’t really use any other online sites besides facebook, but if I did I’m sure I would be just as cautious, as I don’t want anything online that could negatively affect someone’s perception of me.
Foucault’s discussion of the panopticon was an object of not only surveillance, but a laboratory that elicits action on surveillance. I think that this is a novel idea and one to keep in mind. People who are watching aren’t just doing it for entertainment, but to analyze and draw conclusions based on your online activities. However, different than the panopticon, the type of surveillance that exists today is not obvious or easy to stumble upon. We don’t know a lot about the kind of surveillance that occurs in cyberspace. Foucault’s idea of panopticon, then, has greatly expanded and evolved to an extent that only the most current research can gage.
I have always been paranoid of giving out information online. I guess it is because my parents have always been very security conscious and private. Also, I can remember watching a lot of documentaries such as 48 hours that highlighted huge and dangerous breaches in online security earlier in this decade. I mentor 20 middle school girls and I am constantly in the spotlight and expected to uphold high morals for these girls as they face the materialism and insecurities that our culture and media shove in their face. This has held me greatly accountable for maintaining my facebook and myspace page in case they are watching (which they definitely are). At first, I thought it was annoying to have to censor myself to a middle school level but I have since adopted the motto “don’t do anything that you wouldn’t want your little sister to see on facebook the next day.” Since living a lifestyle of high moral standards is a goal of mine, I think that this aspect of surveillance has definitely helped me as a person. My parents and most of my family aren’t on facebook, but I’d have no problem watching my activity on the social networking cite that I am on so often. Additionally, I want my online persona to be prepared for possible employers to search my name and find that I have high standards for myself, especially since I need to be credible enough to work with vulnerable children.
In addition to regulation of my personal life, I do make every effort to protect my identity. However, I know that I am not aware of all the tricks of the modern day panopticon and wouldn’t be surprised if something like that is already in existence. I am curious to see what I will learn from other classmates in dicussion tomorrow.
I think one of the quotes that stuck out most to me was one mentioned by a few others. “He who is subjected to a field of visibility, and who knows it, assumes responsibility for the constraints of power...” When online privacy started becoming an issue (at the time, it was mostly dealing with MySpace, as that was the main online site I was involved in), politicians were looking to have some sort of legislation to control who could get on the site and my parents thought MySpace was a horrible site to be on. The problem I had with that was the only reason it was such a dangerous place for people was because they were being stupid on it and putting out their personal information when they shouldn't have been. It goes back to that particular thing that Foucault says where one has to assume responsibility for what they put online.
The main ways I would say I "self-surveil" myself online would be 1: watching what personal information I put on the internet, mainly on my own pages and 2: controlling what sites I go to and in turn, allow to change things on my computer through adding temporary files and cookies and such. For example, on my particular pages where I have control over what's on the site, I normally hide all my personal information, even some to my friends. I don't necessarily need them all to see my email or other information. Also, by not going to particular sites and subjecting my computer to the files transferred over the web, that is taking responsibility for what information can be transferred. If some sites have a malicious intent, they could potentially view what other things I had been doing and then target ads to those activities, among other things.
Really anyone with the right tools, I suppose, can be watching you online. And by using various tools to keep tracing information off my computer and controlling what I put out there, I think I would probably be pretty good at successfully keeping myself pretty invisible online, except of course who I want to see my stuff.
find the concept of Panopticon to be very interesting. I have never thought of the Internet in terms of Panopticon. I have always known that people were aware of what I decided to post or write on other people’s wall, but I never thought of it in that sense. This concept has allowed me to become a little but more aware of the information I choose to display on the Internet, because you never really know who is watching.
I think I have become more cautious about using the Internet than I was in the past. I am friends with my mom, dad, brother, cousins and even grandma on Facebook. I know that whenever I post something on my status such as a good grade I got on a test, I get a phone call from my mom congratulating me. This is when I began to realize that my mom is “watching” my wall. Now whenever I use Facebook I make sure I post things that whoever reads it will do so without causing negative feedback.
I'm not sure how to interpret "someone" in the question, so I'll answer giving a few interpretations of it.
If "someone" is a Big Brother type of entity, I would say that I don't particularly watch my online activity with regards to that. I don't regularly browse materials that would raise the suspicions of any government or political body. So I don't have any fear that my browsing would attract the attention of any prying eyes.
If someone is just that, a person, I do try to find privacy when I'm in public places like the Union or the Library. But that's mostly because I don't want people to see me reading silly articles or playing online games and judging me based on that. So, that's just me being socially paranoid.
If someone ends up being a third-party of some sort watching via digital means, I do take care to thwart them fairly regularly. I try to make sure I'm only on secure connections and have proper encryption when making online purchases or viewing sensitive personal information. Also, I use software to mask my presence when using programs like Bit Torrent. But that's just common safety protocol.
So I do self-surveil to an extent, but I wouldn't say that I go particularly far out of my way to do it or take it to extreme measures.
Foucault relates the ida of Panopticon to a zoo, saying that "the animal is replaced by man." This idea states that we are all being watched just as the feeble animals in the menagerie. Yet unlike the creatures behind bars humans are aware that they are being watched, and most take careful steps to assure the wellness of their reputation in such and unforgiving and open setting. So in regards to keeping in check one's behavior online Foucalt makes several worthy observations. He says to remember "the power of spectacle." Through the online universe even the most timid have a media through which they create a complete obscenity of their life without ever having to commit to more than the press of a button. Yet most prefer to be the watcher rather than the spectacle itself and stay guard with the craziness they exude. As most of the class has already mention, one keeps their identity safe by not releasing information. Similiarly if one wants to maintain a clean reputation they do not post things about drinking, partying, or suggestive pictures. Also, it is important to remember audiences and to always use appropriate language. Just as Foucault says "our society is one not of specle, but of surveillance" and though quite a few choose to ignore this fact the larger percentage of the population remains socially aware and keeps their private lives in the dark as they rightfully should be.
To those who do not understand, my online activities often resemble utter paranoia. I frequently search for my own name and other references to me in all the top search engines. On most of my social networking sites, I have complex, convoluted privacy settings that even I am often confused by. In public spaces online, I often censor myself to keep certain people (family, potential employers, etc.) from knowing too much about my personal life. I have found in the past (mostly from having snoopy parents) that the Internet is not really as big as anyone thinks, and any information you post has the potential to come back to haunt you. When posting information, I always ask myself what my mother would think if she read it (because if I post it on Twitter, she probably will read it).
When it comes to security, I only send sensitive information over secure connections. When hypothetically engaging in ethically ambigious activities, I use Tor to obscure my identity. When that is not an option, I use other methods to hide my identity.
Others have mentioned various methods of covering trails by clearing browsing history, etc. While I agree that this is a good idea, I prefer that there is no trail in the first place. I generally refuse to use computers that are not mine (which is why I always carry my laptop). I will only use public computers when absolutely necessary, and I will never log into a service using one. In many cases, doing so is just asking for trouble.
Again, I might sound paranoid, but that doesn't reverse the number of smart people who have gotten into trouble (or had their identities stolen) due to unsafe practicing online activities.
While on the internet, I am always wary to give out any personal information because I don't know whether or not they will give the information out. The sources are not always trustworthy and there is no way to check and see if they are sound. There are so many horror stories about people's identities being taken because their computer was hacked or they gave the wrong site information that could be used to steal an identity. Also the threat of viruses steers me away from certain websites i think might contain viruses. There are always the ads on the side of the screen that seem suspicious. I am just cautious when it comes to the internet after hearing about identities being stolen. In general, i am wary about any site that seems suspicious or is not a reputable website. Even emails can receive viruses and spam that can damage the computer and also reveal personal information. I am cautious about what i say in an email because it is now on record with the person, at any time they are able to print it up and show people. For the most part i try to be cautious and proactive in avoiding suspicious sites. I might be a bit paranoid, but at least i feel safer. Another thing that makes me nervous is my search history. I do not want people to know what i have been searching for. If i would not want people to see what i have searched, then i do not want to search for it.
"This Panopticon, subtly arranged so that -observer may observe, at a glance, so many different individuals..." This quote really reminded me of facebook. I log on and at a glance I observe what is going on in the lives of a number of my friends. Sometimes some things people post cause me to think "Wow, do they not know everyone can see this?" Because of these experiences I think about what I post anywhere online. Anyone can see what I write, post, and I constantly keep that in mind while doing anything online. I attempt to live my life in the same way, so my online behavior is just an extension of my everyday behavior. Knowing who can see what I post affects what I post though, to make sure that it's appropriate for all of them to view. When I first got a twitter I posted many more posts about my feelings of frustration, but now that I have many more friends, I don't really do that, because the new audience are not people I share my deep feelings with. If I know someone may see something I say online that I don't want the public to view, I usually send it as a message or fb im, or a text message. If someone hacked my computer, or were able to view all that I was doing without my knowledge I would definitely give away too much of my information, because I would not be aware that they were watching and wouldn't watch what I typed, or said while online.
Foucault brought up some very interesting views of the Panopticon system. One quote that was mentioned by another student is very important, and I feel as if it should be repeated again, "power should be visible and unverifiable. Visible: the inmate will constantly have before his eyes the tall outline of the central tower from which he is spied upon. Unverifiable: the inmate must never know whether he is being looked at at any one moment; but he must be sure that he may always be so" (201). This hold people accountable for their actions. If one is not sure when the 'tower' is looking, then they will keep doing the right thing just in case the 'tower' happens to be looking their way. As Foucault points out again, "He who is subjected to a field of visibility, and who knows it, assumes responsibility for the constraints of power" (202). The person being observed has the ability to chose how the 'tower' has power over them.
This has modern applications with safety and the releasing of private information on the internet. My dad is someone who takes all safety precautions online. He doesn't like paying with his credit card or giving his email to any online organizations. He feels that the internet is not safe enough to handle this information. I feel the same in a small way. I am much more trusting of the internet. I have a facebook, I give my emails to online stores and to online music places, I pay for stuff with my debit card. I am not so guarded on the internet as my dad. However, on my facebook, i don't put up pictures, quotes, or posts that could cause embarrassment to me in the future. I do value my privacy on facebook, only allowing friends to see my profile, pictures, etc.
Knowing that someone could be keeping tabs on me is hard to really grasp, but I that it is possible.
Like Natasha, I was also reminded of the TVs in 1984. The characters could never tell when they were being watched, but they had to assume the worst. Because they knew they WERE being watched (as demonstrated when the TV yelled at him for slacking off during the mandatory morning workouts.)
Like, Julia, I also <3 Trogdor. =] And I do the same thing with usernames. However, I’m sacrificing some of my anonymity by using the same username on multiple sites so I have better luck remembering how to log on. It was a tough choice for me to get Facebook because I was uncomfortable with my full name appearing online alongside my picture and profile information. So the first thing I did was make everything ‘friends only’ and uncheck most of those confounded ‘tell people everything that you do!’ boxes. People don’t need to know when I like a picture. Nor do I want them to…
Anyway, I feel that having a few usernames that I spread across the Internet is more convenient for me, but it also helps anyone who would want to hack my sites (for SOME reason) to get at me more easily. Just search the username and you can find me at a multitude of different places!
At least I don’t shop online. People have mentioned their willingness to give their credit card number and address to online retailers, but I’m old-fashioned and am hesitant to do so. However, with the increased difficulty to find things I want within tangible reach, I may soon resort to the point and click of online shopping.
Cody and Rebecca also mentioned erasing browsing history. I try to remember to do that after using a public computer, but I only clear it every once in a while on my personal computer. After all, as Danica said, if I didn’t know someone were ‘watching me’ after hacking me, I would likely give away a lot of information. Maybe I don’t want to post my phone number, but I would give it out via FB chat or in a message. When something is meant to be private, I sort of take for granted that it is.
It's interesting to note that this is the second class of mine in a month that has brought up the panopticon. I thought it was funny that the line "the gaze is alert everywhere" (195) was underlined, as the aforementioned class discussion was on the power of the concept of "the gaze". However, I digress.
I think the whole idea of the panopticon was attempted by the RIA back when they went on a suing spree. As Foucalt states, the panopticon was made to "arrange things that the surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its action" (201). I know that I stopped downloading music for a while after I heard about the cases of the company suing grandmas and 9 year olds, automatically assuming that if they could be caught, so could I.
As far as self-observation goes, I honestly don't limit my activities based on what I think people will see much. My parents are on facebook, so I do have to untag a few pictures every now and again, but other than that I'm usually free about my business.
I'd agree with a few of the previous posters with the idea that the internet essentially prevents a panopticon from actually existing. the internet is mostly an anonymous engine; rarely do you have to specify yourself. Connecting back to the scenario, people on the internet don't have cell windows that the tower never ceases to look into. They are faceless IP addresses, torrenting the new Muse cd and disappearing. This anonymity abolishes the panopticonistic idea of constant paranoia.
There are many ways for us to use the technology we have access to the best of our advantage. Nonetheless, with this increasing technology is new ways to use surveillance. There are things such as tiny cameras, hearing devices, video cameras, etc. for people to loom over others as our information and activities are more open then ever. Foucault states, “one is totally seen, without ever seeing…..one sees everything without ever being seen” (202), which really shows what some people can do about finding your information. Many people clear their histories if they don’t want others to view embarrassing or personal websites that they have visited. It is a good way to hide your viewing history from your family, friends, or others who use your computer and internet. Now, many internet browsers also have a private browsing setting which does not log viewings, cookies, etc. Some people also choose to not save passwords and personal information that they log on forms on the internet. Another thing that I do is lie about my name, age and address when it is unnecessary for a website to know. If I want access to something without getting bothered by spam mail, I will put a fake email address or mailing address. Nonetheless, there is always ways to view your information and what your online activity is, such as searching on Google, Yahoo Search etc., or if someone is persistent enough, they may buy access to our personal records, criminal history, and family history online. We let a lot of information be known on social networking sites, but many people use privacy settings to make it difficult for stalkers and lurkers to view their personal life. Nonetheless, we may be letting out information to people that we “friend” and think we know. Just as Natasha said, I had a Myspace when I was forbidden and didn’t realize the implications until my parents had to point them out since I was too young to realize it. The idea of panopticon was so interesting, especially the idea of an outside entity being about to watch and be present, yet unknown to us, and possibly unsearchable, which makes internet use scary because surveillance is unknown and so is what someone could do with our information.
I take it for granted that my personal information is already accessible. For example, I wrote for the Arizona Daily Wildcat for six months last year. If one Googles my name, one can easily find each and every article I wrote. As a result, one can assume that I am a student at the University of Arizona, was at one time a part of the school paper, and attended several school events. From these articles, it was also be quite simple to take a subject's name, call them up, and ask for my phone number--the caller could pretend to be another media outlet wanting to hire me. As you can see, it would really be very easy for someone to track me down!
Foucault's example of the quarantine was sort of a metaphor for how I feel. Truly, I do not see much that we, the consumers, can do to self-surveil. I feel as if the information will still make its way into the public realm.
The biggest thing I do is avoid Facebook events. I hardly ever say I am attending, and when I do, it is often to an event that no one can see (i.e., the privacy setting is marked to secret). It freaks me out that people might be able to see what event I am planning on attending--especially when the details as to what, when, and where are all posted on the internet.
I also try to be as appropriate as possible. For example, I try to censor myself in case information is to end up in the hands of someone I did not expect (like a boss reading old Facebook wall posts). And, I only enter my credit card number into secure, reputable websites.
I like the opinion Josten summarized, of the internet not being a panopticon due to the anonymity of the Web. Even so, I think the internet allows for outside entities to spy and surveil more than ever before.
The panopticon actually reminded me a lot of 1984 by George Orwell, in that everyone is observing everyone else, creating a policing force from the simple fact that you never know who is watching you and what they will do.
I remember when I was younger, news about a party I was planning on going to leaked out onto a social networking site. The news was spread rapidly as third parties started inviting people and eventually someone ended up reporting it to the local police and the party was busted. The person who reported it was so far removed from the original group that it took us over a month to figure out who it was. It made me much more careful about what I allow onto social networking sites.
Most precautions I take online in order to preserve my privacy are simple and common sense I believe. I have my computer set to automatically clear my internet history whenever I close my browser. I regularly change my passwords and I don’t use my credit card for anything I don’t want my name attached to. I also don’t join controversial internet communities under my name. When I sign up for anything online I have a specific email address for it so that all of my spam is contained in that particular inbox and I can conveniently ignore it.
Parents have been mentioned as those in the watchtower, looking down on their facebooking children to see of which groups they are a part, of whom they are friending, and the new photos in which they've been tagged. Although I do not enjoy the idea of my parents seeing every aspect of my college lifestyle, I do not self-surveil myself. Mom and Dad will love me regardless of a few bad pictures, but those who will not are employers. Currently I do not feel the need to untag myself from every distasteful tagged photos, but once I am trying to establish my place in the workforce, I am sure that I will have a different outlook. If an employer decides to analyze my facebook page and sees statuses such as, "Kristen Wilhelm is ditching her study session to start the weekend early" then what's to say I would not do the same on a Friday at work? An employer would surely choose another person with all my qualifications, just less irresponsibility.
One can make his or her facebook profile "private" but that only does so much. Despite the settings of my page, nothing is discrete on the internet. I can still google my name and find out an uncomfortable amount of information on myself. One day I may need to clean up my facebook page and hope this produces less google results, but until then I believe my online life needs minimal censorship.
While reading Foucault's description of the panopitcon, I was greatly reminded of Orwell's 1984. However, there was one striking difference: In the panopitcon, "anyone may come and exercise in the central tower the functions of surveillance, and that, this being the case, he can gain a clear idea of the way in which the surveillance is being practised" (207). Lena's blog comment in particular reflects this idea. She said that she is friends with her dad on Facebook, and for this reason she monitors the kinds of pictures that she puts up and the kinds of comments that she makes. She has "a clear idea of the way in which the surveillance is being practised" by her father because she has access to the same features on Facebook. In this example, Facebook acts as the tower because Facebook makes her behavior visible to her father. Also, the power that Facebook gives the user is not only visible, but it is also unverifiable, because, Lena said, "I am not always sure when my father is observing me."
Overall, I minimally self-surveil myself online. Like most of my classmates, I make sure that the content on my Facebook is appropriate for parents as well as for future employers to see, but I don't have to go out of my way to ensure this because most of my behavior is acceptable anyway. I rarely buy products online, but when I do, I am not too concerned about the information that I am giving out because the sites are ones that I trust (Fandango, Barnes & Noble, etc.). I agree with Dustin, though, that the ways in which I would monitor my behavior would depend greatly on who I think is watching. Similarly to him, if I knew that acquaintances were watching the things that I was looking at on the internet, I would most likely try to conceal it because I would not want people misjudging me. Other than that, I don't think that I would monitor my behavior if anyone else was watching. For example, my actions online would be of no interest to the government because I am not any kind of threat, and personally I don't care what strangers think of me because chances are, I will never see them again, so I don't know how much I would mind if they saw the things that I was doing, as long as they didn't know my identity and couldn't find out more about me.
A very important point that Foucault makes is that "he who is subjected to a field of visibility, and who knows it, assumes responsibility . . . he becomes the principle of his own subjection" (202). This is important because it shows that if people know (or think) that they are being watched, they will purposefully change their behavior and will not partake in anything that they could be punished for. Thus, the idea is that people would become more "tamed" and stop illegal or harmful activities. It is no wonder that surveillance is such an appealing policy for authoritative governments such as that in Orwell's 1984.
I think, like many of us, I try to be aware and wary of what I put online because of the possibility of someone checking it out. Like Gretchen, I am not as cautious as I should be in some of my online activities- I've also purchased things online thinking they were safe, only then to get a call from my bank about suspicious charges because someone had hacked and gotten my credit card information. Not fun if any of you haven't had the chance to have you identity stolen. Identity theft would be my one of my biggest concerns about posting information to the internet due to the frequency and ease hackers gain access to someone's account. It's a scary idea to think that these hackers or sexual predators or government officials, etc are able to check in on you and gain access to some of your personal stuff without you even knowing. The internet and technology makes it so much easier to do this because the person checking out my information could be 1 to 1000 miles away and I would have absolutely no idea what they were doing. I think since I've had my identity stolen from online hackers, I'm more cautious about what I do, but I still do it.
I think bringing up FB is a good way that we are in the "tower" looking at everyone else. We can be the people that can watch someone's life (well what they post on FB) without their knowledge. The internet just allows for everyone (some with more privileges and access than others) to do "research" on others.
I agree with the idea of panopticon. With the overwhelming expansion of the internet, the online security has become a problem that is hard to avoid. As more technologies are invented or started to be used online, insecurities are even harder to prevent, and even just to recognize its presence. We might be monitored and our private information might be leaked.
Therefore, we are all seeking ways to protect ourselves online. For example, I don’t purchase stuff and pay online in the insecure wifi, such as UA public. I prefer UA wifi, just in case some will see my private information, for example, my card number. Also, I seldom post my private information online, and if I do, I will always add a restriction on strangers. What’s more, if I go to a unfamiliar website, I won’t fill out my personal information.
I agree with the idea of panopticon. With the overwhelming expansion of the internet, the online security has become a problem that is hard to avoid. As more technologies are invented or started to be used online, insecurities are even harder to prevent, and even just to recognize its presence. We might be monitored and our private information might be leaked.
Therefore, we are all seeking ways to protect ourselves online. For example, I don’t purchase stuff and pay online in the insecure wifi, such as UA public. I prefer UA wifi, just in case some will see my private information, for example, my card number. Also, I seldom post my private information online, and if I do, I will always add a restriction on strangers. What’s more, if I go to a unfamiliar website, I won’t fill out my personal information.
Increasingly, the computer, and more specifically the internet, becomes more integrated and influential in our lives. It is the place where we connect with other people, whether the networks are near or far, specific or broad. It is the place where we gain more information about our world, past, present, products, future, ideas. It is also the place where we buy our items, and consume media in the form of visual art, video, and audio. In a world like today, living without the internet would be disastrously inconvenient. It is in some respects essential to our way of life.
What is scary, though, is that everything is trackable. What we research, what we buy, what we watch, what we download. Even the things that we say to other people, which we expect to be between two people only, can be traced and read by others. This knowledge, if a person is extremely aware of it, can be very limiting in the way that the panopticon is described. If a person is aware, and afraid of getting in trouble enough, he or she would watch everything he or she searches, types, or buy.
I, on the other hand, don't really think about it. I guess what makes me feel safe enough to say what I feel and buy what I want is the anonymity that the mass provides. I feel that, although I am not perfectly in line with what we are "supposed" to do always, I never stray from that line far enough to cause someone to watch me. I do take basic precautions, the things that people always tell me to do: always log off if I'm using a public computer, always check that a website is secure before I buy something online, always post pictures that I wouldn't mind my parents and teachers viewing (I don't have "bad" pictures anyway), don't give out personal information to random people on the internet. Although there are times when I have to research embarassing topics here and there, I do not mind family and friends knowing about it. Overall . . . I feel safe because of the anonymity that the mass brings, yet I do not have much to hide anyways.
In recent years, the world has progressed to a point where virtually everything is done through the Internet. Social networking sites make it easy for friends to communicate with each other without leaving the comfort of their homes. Many high school and college courses are also offered online, and even real classrooms require Internet components. The Worldwide Web has become a source of all kinds of information, and some say that books and hardcopies of text are on their way to extinction. However, it is important to realize that the Internet is public, and that once something is posted online, it can never truly be "erased". Due to this, it is very important to exercise caution when expressing oneself in the virtual world. Many things on the Internet are text, not accompanied with any audio, and because of this wording is important (in order to distinguish between sarcasm and actual beliefs). What's more, nearly all opinions are met with opposition, since so many people are exposed to them, and this often leads to arguments. Personally, I try to self-surveil my own actions by analyzing how my posts will be received by other people. If I feel that a particular comment could be misinterpreted or lead to conflict, I try to either use clearer wording, or simply avoid commenting at all. Being polite and respectful to other Internet-users, is also important in order to project a positive image of myself. Thus, proper etiquette is vital.
We truly are in the technological era. It seems that virtually everything is done via computer/internet these days. Self-surveiling your online behavior may be difficult at times. Online education, social networking, online banking. These are just some of the services I use the internet for every day. With new computer hardware hitting the shelves every week, staying up-to-date is impossible. Software updates seem to be a part of everyday computer maintenance so it can be hard knowing who to trust when you click the “download button.” Along with convenience, the technological era also gave rise to new forms of identity and credit card theft. Spyware and adware programs make it very convenient for others to access your personal information and potentially steel it if it is left unprotected. The internet is a very public place that everyone in the world has access too. For this reason, the internet is like writing in ink—what gets posted is never truly erased. I monitor my online behavior very carefully to make sure my personal information stays personal and my reputation does not become tarnished because of a ridiculous blog or an outrageous picture. I take caution to not shop at unsecure websites or click on any suspicious pop-ups. This is the most common way to pick up spyware or adware that have the potential to steel your credit card information. Also I never give out my social security number, use my real name, or give out my address to prevent identity theft. When I am social networking or blogging, I am sure to respect other people’s opinions and comments. Just like in a normal face-to-face conversation, being polite gives good credibility to the speaker.
As new forms of media come out, the world becomes more and more of an immense panopticon system. With the inventions of surveillance technologies such as the camera, those in control no longer need the ominous watchtower looming over our shoulder although we still most definitely feel its presence. Nor do we need to be separated into our individual open-ceiling cells, but our activities have become more open than ever.
ReplyDeleteMost everyone already knows of the erase history feature for erasing tracks of your activity, but this only protects yourself from those prying into your privacy from the inside: your family, your friends, etc. Still, even this method is not absolutely guaranteed to keep your behavior private.
From the outside, our activities are unconcealable from the authorities. We can only hope for that opportune moment when the guards decide to leave the tower or we can hope to go unnoticed by blending in with the rest of the prisoners. For most of us, illegal activity over the internet is pretty easy to get by with. The police force hired by the king often neglects the petty crimes so prevalent in the general public.
We are fortunate that the government has not decided to lay down the iron fist on our control of the internet. The panopticon could very well become a reality such as in those numerous novels of dystopia with mass censureship and control. Although by the very nature of the internet, it cannot become a perfect panopticon; it can still exert a great power over all internet users. Like schools, hosptials, and factories, the internet has the possibility of becoming a prison as well.
I thought that the concept of the panopticon was interesting, and actually quite accurate with regard to the Internet today. As Foucault says, "... power should be visible and unverifiable. Visible: the inmate will constantly have before his eyes the tall outline of the central tower from which he is spied upon. Unverifiable: the inmate must never know whether he is being looked at at any one moment, but he must be sure that he may always be so." We all know that outside companies, the government, etc. watch our movements online; for example, the advertisements that show up on web pages we frequently visit are tailored to meet our interests based on the websites we visit. This obviously shows that where we go on the Internet, what we do can be and is monitored by outside sources, whether we realize it or not.
ReplyDeleteAs Cody pointed out, there is of course the option to erase your browsing history and cookies from your individual computer, but this only protects you from eyes who have access to your computer. Of course, everyone who uses the Internet is always told, "Don't put personal information online". However, I can't help but feel that because I use the Internet, my personal information can be found by an outside entity (such as the government) if they have the tools to find it: of course, this doesn't change the fact that most of us still don't publish personal information online in an attempt to remain as anonymous as possible.
I think it's really interesting to relate an old architectural design to the new media of the internet. However, this relation fits. We are constantly told to "be careful" about what we put online, and many of us are wary to give our social security number or credit card information without knowing at least a little bit about who we're giving it to. Why? Well, we've had our discussion about government and new media, and we've had our discussion about hackers... The reason we are cautious about what we put online is because we are never sure who will end up with our private information. We are always wary of that "watchful eye" because nobody really knows when it's watching.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I try to never give out my age, address, or full name unless it is required for a legitimate purpose. I also never post anything that will incriminate me or make me look bad in any way. This carries over into the physical world in that I strive to never do anything that could be perceived as damaging to my character so that other people cannot post this information. For example: the Dirty.
The use of social networking websites, especially Facebook, is a great example of the Panopticon system. I am friends with my father on Facebook and because of this I feel that my relationship with facebook supports the Panopticon system. It seems as though I am the inmate and my father is watching from the center tower. Foucault mentions that, “power should be visible and unverifiable”. This is exactly how I feel on Facebook knowing that my father could be monitoring my every move. I feel like the inmate when I can see that my father is online, but I can’t exactly see what he is doing. I can’t see what or whose profile he is looking at. Also, I am not always sure when my father is observing me; it is unverifiable. He does, however, have the potential to see everything that I do. So because of this I am careful and hesitant as to what I put online. I don’t want to post anything I wouldn’t want my dad reading or seeing. In agreement with Foucault, my actions and behaviors are different because I feel like my dad, the “tower”, is constantly watching me.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, my actions online can be seen to even more people of the outside word. I know that when you Google my name, my Twitter page pops up. This means that anybody and everybody has access to what I put on my profile. In fact, someone could view parts of my profile without me or anybody else knowing it. Just like Foucault says, “one is totally seen, without ever seeing…..one sees everything without ever being seen.” So knowing that anybody could be watching, I must be careful of what online activities I become involved in.
Online security is questionable and I think all of us can admit that we tend to be cautious when putting our personal information online. There are definitely ways of attempting to conceal our identities and online activities, but hacking is always an option. I know my dad always taught me a way of deleting all my previous actions online by going to the tool bar and pressing "delete browsing history." The effectiveness is questionable, however it is a security blanket for some people and therefore we do it. I especially do it after checking my online banking information, which is highly risky, in my opinion. Facebook, twitter, and myspace are all social networking sites that most of us put barely, if any real information that could allow someone to find out too much information. There is no doubt that security breaches happen and all of us do several things to attempt to secure our information, or just conceal some personal information. We all hear the horror stories about people finding others through online sources and committing terrible actions.
ReplyDeleteLena made a valid point about her father and facebook and relating it to the idea of the Panopticon. I, thankfully, do not have a father or mother that has a facebook, however I definitely monitor what is on my facebook for other people, such as my aunt or employers. As is said with the idea of the Panopticon metaphorically, as an "inmate," people can in a sense "spy from the central tower." This definitely relates to not only offline, such as the government, phone lines, etc, but also online.
First off, I was completely fascinated by the panopticon, I was in awe of the idea of it as well as terrified. The idea that one is observing me without me knowing of it has come to mind more than once. The idea that the observer can observe without the subject knowing is a creepy concept to say the least and is the core of the panopticon. I thought about it all the time after watching Jim Carrey’s movie, The Truman Show. Although it is not a prison, the man character in the movie is filmed without his consent or knowledge. Another thing that came to mind while reading Foucault’s discussion of the panopticon was George Orwell’s book about censorship, 1984. In the book, the citizens of the Utopia are closely watched 24/7 without the citizens being aware of it. They know that they are being watched but they do not know where or how it is possible. In the story, each citizen is required to have a closed-circuit television in their homes. This TV is controlled by the thought police to watch the citizens. At any moment a person can be observed though the telescreen but whether they are being watched or not is unknown to that person. Say that was implemented today, people would not complain because they would be unaware of it.
ReplyDeleteI would like to say that I am cautious online but not as cautious as I should be. I remember when Myspace first got big, my mother forbid me to have one because she had heard all of the horror stories that come along with one. Finally she caved in and said I couldn’t have a photo online but that I could have a site. I completely ignored her and got on my first social networking site unaware of who is out there watching me. As I got older I understood my mom’s concern and cracked down on the information I let out to the public. I set my sites to private and never listed my hometown. I also don’t put up pictures that would be deemed inappropriate (not like I have any in the first place, but still). Now being in college, jobs and other opportunities might be looking at my page without me knowing about it, this is why I keep the red cup pictures to a minimum. Yet like someone said before me, this carries out into the physical world, my mother always told me to behave, not because it is the right thing to do but because people are always watching.
As I was reading, I realized that I had never really questioned the idea of a panopticon idea when working online. Although I have obviously been aware of the access of others to whatever information I release, the panopticon idea is a new way of considering this "machine which, whatever use one may wish to put it to, produces homogenous effects of power" (202). Personally, I have taken simple precautions as many students have mentioned, including the use of privacy settings on facebook and restricting the amount of personal information I give out to unfamiliar organizations. That is simply a rule for the online and physical world, knowing that after releasing this information, it is nearly impossible to control where it may end up. Something I have considered specifically when working online is what I post in status updates, pictures, and comments, even though I do have my profile on private. Now that my grandma and aunt have created profiles, I think about their response before I write something. I never allow questionable pictures to be taken of me now that employers look at profiles as well.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found new and interesting about the panopticon was the visible and unverifiable aspects that Rebecca defined earlier. An outside power is present and watching, but specific actions and locations of the power are unknown. I like the explanation by Foucault: “…one is totally seen, without ever seeing; in the central tower, one sees everything without ever being seen” (202).
Foucault wrote that the “effect of the Panopticon” is that it induces “state of conscious and permanent visibility.” The idea that this observation is “permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its action” really frustrates me. It almost induces a sense of paranoia – I really dislike the idea of being watched, but not knowing WHEN I’m being watched.
ReplyDeleteThen, on page 202, Foucault said, “He who is subjected to a field of visibility, and who knows it, assumes responsibility for the constraints of power; he makes them play spontaneously upon himself.” I found this to be true – the internet poses this “field of visibility,” and I “assume responsibility” and “constrain” myself, restricting the information I let out. One way that I self-surveil online is by using false names. I rarely use my own name, even then I almost never include my entire name. I make up weird names that I can barely remember. For example, for one of my gmail accounts, I gave myself the name I_<3_Trogdor. I also self-surveil in terms of pictures. Several years ago, when I first got my FaceBook account, I was looking for a profile picture, and the first picture of me that I came across on my computer was not a bad picture of me, but apparently my parents, who found the picture a year or so later when they joined FaceBook, thought the picture was scandalous. They taught me to be more careful about what I post online, picturewise, because of online predators and the like. In both cases, because of this “permanent visibility” I watch what I put online about myself, which, according to Foucault, should “assure the automatic functioning of power.” I find that this is also correct - through filtering what I put online, I can function more smoothly, by slipping past with my anonymous label. My ability to work online isn’t inhibited by anything, and if I were to apply for a job, no inappropriate pictures would ruin my chances for getting hired, for no such pictures are to be found.
Unlike Julia, who seems to self-surveil quite well, I can't really say that I engage in a lot of my own self-surveillance while on the Internet. I am definitely careful about who I give my full name, credit card #s, etc. to. However, I have a Facebook and a Twitter account (which both show up on a Google search of my name), and I do order lots of stuff online, trusting that what I'm doing is safe. This article by Foucault actually made me think about my actions on the Internet and the idea behind the Panopiticon, in which the major effect is "to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power." This idea is something quite scary to me, and I can't say that the Internet has induced this in me (or at least not well enough). Sometimes when I'm on the Internet I take on the naive persona, who believes that nothing bad will ever actually happen to me. Reading this article though, I think it might make me a little more cautious on the Internet, considering that there is constantly someone who may or may not be watching me.
ReplyDeleteEveryone has previously made a reference to Bentham's principle which says that "power should be visible and unverifiable," and I think this is true in terms of the Internet being its own kind of Panopticon. We have all learned about being careful in terms of what information we give out online, but even taking precautions (i.e. not putting my phone number on Facebook), I still feel like those who understand the Internet and have the so-called "power" could get into our systems anyway and figure out this kind of information.
The main difference that I see between the Panopticon and the Internet, is that by entering the Internet, we are making the conscious decision to be online, knowing that potentially everything we do may be watched by someone else. I feel like the way the Panopticon is described for prisoners, schoolchildren, and "inmates" as they are often called, is referring to the Panopticon as being a "disciplinary mechanism" in order to use power to make these inmates do what those in power want them to do, or behave how they want them to. I do not feel like this is the case with the Internet. While we are inmates to those who have the power to see what we're doing, we are being disciplined to work a certain way within the realm of the Internet, but we have choices, and whether or not we choose to engage in activities that could result in us being punished, is up to us.
I also think it is interesting that a model that uses "strict spatial partitioning" is used as a parallel to the Internet, something that has brought people closer together than they have ever been before. Kind of ironic...
In some cases, I am very careful with my online activity. On Facebook, for example, I've created a list of specific people who can't view my photos, wall comments, etc. I've heard horror stories of employers turning down potential employees because of the content on their Facebook pages. I do, essentially, "assume responsibility for the constraints of power," as I realize that I am "subjected to a field of visibility" (202). However, I take practically no safety measures when I shop online. As long as the site has a fancy little "Secure" icon, I'm set to shop. I've disclosed my credit card number numerous times, and given out my address/phone number an uncountable number of times.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is true that the makers of ad campaigns, the government, hackers, etc. are portrayed as powerful because of the Panopticon, it is interesting to note how the average Joe benefits from the Panopticon as well. Just as we hide information from ad campaigns and in turn indicate that such a campaign is powerful, so do random Facebook users set up their profile as private to hide information from the average Joe. Joe is, then, viewed as "powerful" by these random profiles and the Panoptic system. For the random profiles, for whatever reason, view Joe as a powerful figure capable of bringing them harm or inconvenience with use of their personal information. However, in my mind, this so-called "power" handed to Joe by the Panopticon is anything but useful. It seems that such power only inspires people to be more cautious and conscious of the watchtower that spies over them.
As Foucault stated, "The panoptic schema, without disappearing as such or losing any fits properties, was destined to spread throughout the social body; its vocation was to become a generalized function (Foucault, 207)". Although the idea of the panoptic is alarming at first, it is apparent that it has in fact infiltrated many of today's social interactions, with an emphasis on those related to the internet. Like others who commented before, I had not thought of Foucault's idea of a "disciplinary mechanism" and its relationship with the internet prior to reading his piece. Much like Gretchen stated in her blog post, I often take on a naive persona as well when using the internet, assuming that whatever I'm doing is safe from online predators and the like. However, after reading today's assigned readings, my self-awareness in terms of my online activity has definitely been heightened.
ReplyDeleteLike others also stated, I believe myself to be quite safe in terms of the sharing of my personal information online. When distributing personal information such as a credit card number, address, telephone number, or social security number, I always check the site to see whether or not it is secure as well as its credibility. To me, these things are common sense, but Foucault's piece made me realize that anything I do online may be watched by someone I never have or will meet in my life. It reminded me of news stories after the invention of wireless networks, involving predators sitting outside peoples' houses, hacking into their network and observing their internet activity and accessing their personal information without them ever knowing. Because most of my internet activity involves social networking sites such as Facebook, I am used to limiting my personal information and utilizing privacy settings for my profile. When I first began using Facebook, I was inclined the add people as friends that I did not know very well, but nowadays unless I truly know a person, I do not add them as a Facebook friend. Photos on Facebook are also a concern when I'm online, so I make sure to only allow my "friends" to be able to view the photos I post. I also use online banking, which is probably one of the most trusting activities one can do online, seeing as that information can change a life if put into the wrong hands. I am always careful to make sure that I am using a secured wireless network, for instance, UAPublic allows anyone to access your online activity, while every other UA network is secured.
Overall, I would say that my internet use has been a very careful and prudent one thus far. I try to be as careful as possible when I post critical personal information, but Foucault's idea of the penopticon, where a mass group can be observed unknowingly opened my eyes o the possibility of my online activity being watched. I don't feel as though I have anything to hide, but I am grateful that I have more of a watchful eye over who I talk to and what I participate in online.
I thought that the idea of the panopticon was extremely interesting- never knowing if you were being watched, but always knowing that it was possible. It is a nightmare for any semi-paranoid person. As soon as I read the blog question, I immediately thought of facebook. When I first got a facebook in high school, I could post anything I wanted without worrying about who would see it. As time went on, I became friends with my cousins (who would love to tell their parents if I posted anything I shouldn’t), parents of kids I used to babysit, parents I work as a nanny for over the summer, my mom, and my aunt. Ever since that began happening, I started thinking twice every time I updated my status or posted something on a friend’s wall. I get facebook notifications on my phone, and every time I receive one saying that I was tagged in a photo, I immediately go online on my phone to make sure that it’s a photo I would be okay with my relatives seeing. I don’t really use any other online sites besides facebook, but if I did I’m sure I would be just as cautious, as I don’t want anything online that could negatively affect someone’s perception of me.
ReplyDeleteFoucault’s discussion of the panopticon was an object of not only surveillance, but a laboratory that elicits action on surveillance. I think that this is a novel idea and one to keep in mind. People who are watching aren’t just doing it for entertainment, but to analyze and draw conclusions based on your online activities. However, different than the panopticon, the type of surveillance that exists today is not obvious or easy to stumble upon. We don’t know a lot about the kind of surveillance that occurs in cyberspace. Foucault’s idea of panopticon, then, has greatly expanded and evolved to an extent that only the most current research can gage.
ReplyDeleteI have always been paranoid of giving out information online. I guess it is because my parents have always been very security conscious and private. Also, I can remember watching a lot of documentaries such as 48 hours that highlighted huge and dangerous breaches in online security earlier in this decade. I mentor 20 middle school girls and I am constantly in the spotlight and expected to uphold high morals for these girls as they face the materialism and insecurities that our culture and media shove in their face. This has held me greatly accountable for maintaining my facebook and myspace page in case they are watching (which they definitely are). At first, I thought it was annoying to have to censor myself to a middle school level but I have since adopted the motto “don’t do anything that you wouldn’t want your little sister to see on facebook the next day.” Since living a lifestyle of high moral standards is a goal of mine, I think that this aspect of surveillance has definitely helped me as a person. My parents and most of my family aren’t on facebook, but I’d have no problem watching my activity on the social networking cite that I am on so often. Additionally, I want my online persona to be prepared for possible employers to search my name and find that I have high standards for myself, especially since I need to be credible enough to work with vulnerable children.
In addition to regulation of my personal life, I do make every effort to protect my identity. However, I know that I am not aware of all the tricks of the modern day panopticon and wouldn’t be surprised if something like that is already in existence. I am curious to see what I will learn from other classmates in dicussion tomorrow.
I think one of the quotes that stuck out most to me was one mentioned by a few others. “He who is subjected to a field of visibility, and who knows it, assumes responsibility for the constraints of power...” When online privacy started becoming an issue (at the time, it was mostly dealing with MySpace, as that was the main online site I was involved in), politicians were looking to have some sort of legislation to control who could get on the site and my parents thought MySpace was a horrible site to be on. The problem I had with that was the only reason it was such a dangerous place for people was because they were being stupid on it and putting out their personal information when they shouldn't have been. It goes back to that particular thing that Foucault says where one has to assume responsibility for what they put online.
ReplyDeleteThe main ways I would say I "self-surveil" myself online would be 1: watching what personal information I put on the internet, mainly on my own pages and 2: controlling what sites I go to and in turn, allow to change things on my computer through adding temporary files and cookies and such. For example, on my particular pages where I have control over what's on the site, I normally hide all my personal information, even some to my friends. I don't necessarily need them all to see my email or other information. Also, by not going to particular sites and subjecting my computer to the files transferred over the web, that is taking responsibility for what information can be transferred. If some sites have a malicious intent, they could potentially view what other things I had been doing and then target ads to those activities, among other things.
Really anyone with the right tools, I suppose, can be watching you online. And by using various tools to keep tracing information off my computer and controlling what I put out there, I think I would probably be pretty good at successfully keeping myself pretty invisible online, except of course who I want to see my stuff.
find the concept of Panopticon to be very interesting. I have never thought of the Internet in terms of Panopticon. I have always known that people were aware of what I decided to post or write on other people’s wall, but I never thought of it in that sense. This concept has allowed me to become a little but more aware of the information I choose to display on the Internet, because you never really know who is watching.
ReplyDeleteI think I have become more cautious about using the Internet than I was in the past. I am friends with my mom, dad, brother, cousins and even grandma on Facebook. I know that whenever I post something on my status such as a good grade I got on a test, I get a phone call from my mom congratulating me. This is when I began to realize that my mom is “watching” my wall. Now whenever I use Facebook I make sure I post things that whoever reads it will do so without causing negative feedback.
I'm not sure how to interpret "someone" in the question, so I'll answer giving a few interpretations of it.
ReplyDeleteIf "someone" is a Big Brother type of entity, I would say that I don't particularly watch my online activity with regards to that. I don't regularly browse materials that would raise the suspicions of any government or political body. So I don't have any fear that my browsing would attract the attention of any prying eyes.
If someone is just that, a person, I do try to find privacy when I'm in public places like the Union or the Library. But that's mostly because I don't want people to see me reading silly articles or playing online games and judging me based on that. So, that's just me being socially paranoid.
If someone ends up being a third-party of some sort watching via digital means, I do take care to thwart them fairly regularly. I try to make sure I'm only on secure connections and have proper encryption when making online purchases or viewing sensitive personal information. Also, I use software to mask my presence when using programs like Bit Torrent. But that's just common safety protocol.
So I do self-surveil to an extent, but I wouldn't say that I go particularly far out of my way to do it or take it to extreme measures.
Foucault relates the ida of Panopticon to a zoo, saying that "the animal is replaced by man." This idea states that we are all being watched just as the feeble animals in the menagerie. Yet unlike the creatures behind bars humans are aware that they are being watched, and most take careful steps to assure the wellness of their reputation in such and unforgiving and open setting.
ReplyDeleteSo in regards to keeping in check one's behavior online Foucalt makes several worthy observations. He says to remember "the power of spectacle." Through the online universe even the most timid have a media through which they create a complete obscenity of their life without ever having to commit to more than the press of a button. Yet most prefer to be the watcher rather than the spectacle itself and stay guard with the craziness they exude. As most of the class has already mention, one keeps their identity safe by not releasing information. Similiarly if one wants to maintain a clean reputation they do not post things about drinking, partying, or suggestive pictures. Also, it is important to remember audiences and to always use appropriate language.
Just as Foucault says "our society is one not of specle, but of surveillance" and though quite a few choose to ignore this fact the larger percentage of the population remains socially aware and keeps their private lives in the dark as they rightfully should be.
To those who do not understand, my online activities often resemble utter paranoia. I frequently search for my own name and other references to me in all the top search engines. On most of my social networking sites, I have complex, convoluted privacy settings that even I am often confused by. In public spaces online, I often censor myself to keep certain people (family, potential employers, etc.) from knowing too much about my personal life. I have found in the past (mostly from having snoopy parents) that the Internet is not really as big as anyone thinks, and any information you post has the potential to come back to haunt you. When posting information, I always ask myself what my mother would think if she read it (because if I post it on Twitter, she probably will read it).
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to security, I only send sensitive information over secure connections. When hypothetically engaging in ethically ambigious activities, I use Tor to obscure my identity. When that is not an option, I use other methods to hide my identity.
Others have mentioned various methods of covering trails by clearing browsing history, etc. While I agree that this is a good idea, I prefer that there is no trail in the first place. I generally refuse to use computers that are not mine (which is why I always carry my laptop). I will only use public computers when absolutely necessary, and I will never log into a service using one. In many cases, doing so is just asking for trouble.
Again, I might sound paranoid, but that doesn't reverse the number of smart people who have gotten into trouble (or had their identities stolen) due to unsafe practicing online activities.
While on the internet, I am always wary to give out any personal information because I don't know whether or not they will give the information out. The sources are not always trustworthy and there is no way to check and see if they are sound. There are so many horror stories about people's identities being taken because their computer was hacked or they gave the wrong site information that could be used to steal an identity. Also the threat of viruses steers me away from certain websites i think might contain viruses. There are always the ads on the side of the screen that seem suspicious. I am just cautious when it comes to the internet after hearing about identities being stolen. In general, i am wary about any site that seems suspicious or is not a reputable website. Even emails can receive viruses and spam that can damage the computer and also reveal personal information. I am cautious about what i say in an email because it is now on record with the person, at any time they are able to print it up and show people. For the most part i try to be cautious and proactive in avoiding suspicious sites. I might be a bit paranoid, but at least i feel safer. Another thing that makes me nervous is my search history. I do not want people to know what i have been searching for. If i would not want people to see what i have searched, then i do not want to search for it.
ReplyDelete"This Panopticon, subtly arranged so that -observer may observe, at a glance, so many different individuals..." This quote really reminded me of facebook. I log on and at a glance I observe what is going on in the lives of a number of my friends. Sometimes some things people post cause me to think "Wow, do they not know everyone can see this?" Because of these experiences I think about what I post anywhere online. Anyone can see what I write, post, and I constantly keep that in mind while doing anything online. I attempt to live my life in the same way, so my online behavior is just an extension of my everyday behavior. Knowing who can see what I post affects what I post though, to make sure that it's appropriate for all of them to view. When I first got a twitter I posted many more posts about my feelings of frustration, but now that I have many more friends, I don't really do that, because the new audience are not people I share my deep feelings with.
ReplyDeleteIf I know someone may see something I say online that I don't want the public to view, I usually send it as a message or fb im, or a text message. If someone hacked my computer, or were able to view all that I was doing without my knowledge I would definitely give away too much of my information, because I would not be aware that they were watching and wouldn't watch what I typed, or said while online.
Foucault brought up some very interesting views of the Panopticon system. One quote that was mentioned by another student is very important, and I feel as if it should be repeated again, "power should be visible and unverifiable. Visible: the inmate will constantly have before his eyes the tall outline of the central tower from which he is spied upon. Unverifiable: the inmate must never know whether he is being looked at at any one moment; but he must be sure that he may always be so" (201). This hold people accountable for their actions. If one is not sure when the 'tower' is looking, then they will keep doing the right thing just in case the 'tower' happens to be looking their way. As Foucault points out again, "He who is subjected to a field of visibility, and who knows it, assumes responsibility for the constraints of power" (202). The person being observed has the ability to chose how the 'tower' has power over them.
ReplyDeleteThis has modern applications with safety and the releasing of private information on the internet. My dad is someone who takes all safety precautions online. He doesn't like paying with his credit card or giving his email to any online organizations. He feels that the internet is not safe enough to handle this information. I feel the same in a small way. I am much more trusting of the internet. I have a facebook, I give my emails to online stores and to online music places, I pay for stuff with my debit card. I am not so guarded on the internet as my dad. However, on my facebook, i don't put up pictures, quotes, or posts that could cause embarrassment to me in the future. I do value my privacy on facebook, only allowing friends to see my profile, pictures, etc.
Knowing that someone could be keeping tabs on me is hard to really grasp, but I that it is possible.
Like Natasha, I was also reminded of the TVs in 1984. The characters could never tell when they were being watched, but they had to assume the worst. Because they knew they WERE being watched (as demonstrated when the TV yelled at him for slacking off during the mandatory morning workouts.)
ReplyDeleteLike, Julia, I also <3 Trogdor. =]
And I do the same thing with usernames. However, I’m sacrificing some of my anonymity by using the same username on multiple sites so I have better luck remembering how to log on. It was a tough choice for me to get Facebook because I was uncomfortable with my full name appearing online alongside my picture and profile information. So the first thing I did was make everything ‘friends only’ and uncheck most of those confounded ‘tell people everything that you do!’ boxes. People don’t need to know when I like a picture. Nor do I want them to…
Anyway, I feel that having a few usernames that I spread across the Internet is more convenient for me, but it also helps anyone who would want to hack my sites (for SOME reason) to get at me more easily. Just search the username and you can find me at a multitude of different places!
At least I don’t shop online. People have mentioned their willingness to give their credit card number and address to online retailers, but I’m old-fashioned and am hesitant to do so. However, with the increased difficulty to find things I want within tangible reach, I may soon resort to the point and click of online shopping.
Cody and Rebecca also mentioned erasing browsing history. I try to remember to do that after using a public computer, but I only clear it every once in a while on my personal computer. After all, as Danica said, if I didn’t know someone were ‘watching me’ after hacking me, I would likely give away a lot of information. Maybe I don’t want to post my phone number, but I would give it out via FB chat or in a message. When something is meant to be private, I sort of take for granted that it is.
It's interesting to note that this is the second class of mine in a month that has brought up the panopticon. I thought it was funny that the line "the gaze is alert everywhere" (195) was underlined, as the aforementioned class discussion was on the power of the concept of "the gaze". However, I digress.
ReplyDeleteI think the whole idea of the panopticon was attempted by the RIA back when they went on a suing spree. As Foucalt states, the panopticon was made to "arrange things that the surveillance is permanent in its effects, even if it is discontinuous in its action" (201). I know that I stopped downloading music for a while after I heard about the cases of the company suing grandmas and 9 year olds, automatically assuming that if they could be caught, so could I.
As far as self-observation goes, I honestly don't limit my activities based on what I think people will see much. My parents are on facebook, so I do have to untag a few pictures every now and again, but other than that I'm usually free about my business.
I'd agree with a few of the previous posters with the idea that the internet essentially prevents a panopticon from actually existing. the internet is mostly an anonymous engine; rarely do you have to specify yourself. Connecting back to the scenario, people on the internet don't have cell windows that the tower never ceases to look into. They are faceless IP addresses, torrenting the new Muse cd and disappearing. This anonymity abolishes the panopticonistic idea of constant paranoia.
There are many ways for us to use the technology we have access to the best of our advantage. Nonetheless, with this increasing technology is new ways to use surveillance. There are things such as tiny cameras, hearing devices, video cameras, etc. for people to loom over others as our information and activities are more open then ever. Foucault states, “one is totally seen, without ever seeing…..one sees everything without ever being seen” (202), which really shows what some people can do about finding your information.
ReplyDeleteMany people clear their histories if they don’t want others to view embarrassing or personal websites that they have visited. It is a good way to hide your viewing history from your family, friends, or others who use your computer and internet. Now, many internet browsers also have a private browsing setting which does not log viewings, cookies, etc. Some people also choose to not save passwords and personal information that they log on forms on the internet.
Another thing that I do is lie about my name, age and address when it is unnecessary for a website to know. If I want access to something without getting bothered by spam mail, I will put a fake email address or mailing address. Nonetheless, there is always ways to view your information and what your online activity is, such as searching on Google, Yahoo Search etc., or if someone is persistent enough, they may buy access to our personal records, criminal history, and family history online. We let a lot of information be known on social networking sites, but many people use privacy settings to make it difficult for stalkers and lurkers to view their personal life. Nonetheless, we may be letting out information to people that we “friend” and think we know. Just as Natasha said, I had a Myspace when I was forbidden and didn’t realize the implications until my parents had to point them out since I was too young to realize it.
The idea of panopticon was so interesting, especially the idea of an outside entity being about to watch and be present, yet unknown to us, and possibly unsearchable, which makes internet use scary because surveillance is unknown and so is what someone could do with our information.
I take it for granted that my personal information is already accessible. For example, I wrote for the Arizona Daily Wildcat for six months last year. If one Googles my name, one can easily find each and every article I wrote. As a result, one can assume that I am a student at the University of Arizona, was at one time a part of the school paper, and attended several school events. From these articles, it was also be quite simple to take a subject's name, call them up, and ask for my phone number--the caller could pretend to be another media outlet wanting to hire me. As you can see, it would really be very easy for someone to track me down!
ReplyDeleteFoucault's example of the quarantine was sort of a metaphor for how I feel. Truly, I do not see much that we, the consumers, can do to self-surveil. I feel as if the information will still make its way into the public realm.
The biggest thing I do is avoid Facebook events. I hardly ever say I am attending, and when I do, it is often to an event that no one can see (i.e., the privacy setting is marked to secret). It freaks me out that people might be able to see what event I am planning on attending--especially when the details as to what, when, and where are all posted on the internet.
I also try to be as appropriate as possible. For example, I try to censor myself in case information is to end up in the hands of someone I did not expect (like a boss reading old Facebook wall posts). And, I only enter my credit card number into secure, reputable websites.
I like the opinion Josten summarized, of the internet not being a panopticon due to the anonymity of the Web. Even so, I think the internet allows for outside entities to spy and surveil more than ever before.
The panopticon actually reminded me a lot of 1984 by George Orwell, in that everyone is observing everyone else, creating a policing force from the simple fact that you never know who is watching you and what they will do.
ReplyDeleteI remember when I was younger, news about a party I was planning on going to leaked out onto a social networking site. The news was spread rapidly as third parties started inviting people and eventually someone ended up reporting it to the local police and the party was busted. The person who reported it was so far removed from the original group that it took us over a month to figure out who it was. It made me much more careful about what I allow onto social networking sites.
Most precautions I take online in order to preserve my privacy are simple and common sense I believe. I have my computer set to automatically clear my internet history whenever I close my browser. I regularly change my passwords and I don’t use my credit card for anything I don’t want my name attached to. I also don’t join controversial internet communities under my name. When I sign up for anything online I have a specific email address for it so that all of my spam is contained in that particular inbox and I can conveniently ignore it.
Parents have been mentioned as those in the watchtower, looking down on their facebooking children to see of which groups they are a part, of whom they are friending, and the new photos in which they've been tagged. Although I do not enjoy the idea of my parents seeing every aspect of my college lifestyle, I do not self-surveil myself. Mom and Dad will love me regardless of a few bad pictures, but those who will not are employers. Currently I do not feel the need to untag myself from every distasteful tagged photos, but once I am trying to establish my place in the workforce, I am sure that I will have a different outlook. If an employer decides to analyze my facebook page and sees statuses such as, "Kristen Wilhelm is ditching her study session to start the weekend early" then what's to say I would not do the same on a Friday at work? An employer would surely choose another person with all my qualifications, just less irresponsibility.
ReplyDeleteOne can make his or her facebook profile "private" but that only does so much. Despite the settings of my page, nothing is discrete on the internet. I can still google my name and find out an uncomfortable amount of information on myself. One day I may need to clean up my facebook page and hope this produces less google results, but until then I believe my online life needs minimal censorship.
While reading Foucault's description of the panopitcon, I was greatly reminded of Orwell's 1984. However, there was one striking difference: In the panopitcon, "anyone may come and exercise in the central tower the functions of surveillance, and that, this being the case, he can gain a clear idea of the way in which the surveillance is being practised" (207). Lena's blog comment in particular reflects this idea. She said that she is friends with her dad on Facebook, and for this reason she monitors the kinds of pictures that she puts up and the kinds of comments that she makes. She has "a clear idea of the way in which the surveillance is being practised" by her father because she has access to the same features on Facebook. In this example, Facebook acts as the tower because Facebook makes her behavior visible to her father. Also, the power that Facebook gives the user is not only visible, but it is also unverifiable, because, Lena said, "I am not always sure when my father is observing me."
ReplyDeleteOverall, I minimally self-surveil myself online. Like most of my classmates, I make sure that the content on my Facebook is appropriate for parents as well as for future employers to see, but I don't have to go out of my way to ensure this because most of my behavior is acceptable anyway. I rarely buy products online, but when I do, I am not too concerned about the information that I am giving out because the sites are ones that I trust (Fandango, Barnes & Noble, etc.). I agree with Dustin, though, that the ways in which I would monitor my behavior would depend greatly on who I think is watching. Similarly to him, if I knew that acquaintances were watching the things that I was looking at on the internet, I would most likely try to conceal it because I would not want people misjudging me. Other than that, I don't think that I would monitor my behavior if anyone else was watching. For example, my actions online would be of no interest to the government because I am not any kind of threat, and personally I don't care what strangers think of me because chances are, I will never see them again, so I don't know how much I would mind if they saw the things that I was doing, as long as they didn't know my identity and couldn't find out more about me.
A very important point that Foucault makes is that "he who is subjected to a field of visibility, and who knows it, assumes responsibility . . . he becomes the principle of his own subjection" (202). This is important because it shows that if people know (or think) that they are being watched, they will purposefully change their behavior and will not partake in anything that they could be punished for. Thus, the idea is that people would become more "tamed" and stop illegal or harmful activities. It is no wonder that surveillance is such an appealing policy for authoritative governments such as that in Orwell's 1984.
I think, like many of us, I try to be aware and wary of what I put online because of the possibility of someone checking it out. Like Gretchen, I am not as cautious as I should be in some of my online activities- I've also purchased things online thinking they were safe, only then to get a call from my bank about suspicious charges because someone had hacked and gotten my credit card information. Not fun if any of you haven't had the chance to have you identity stolen. Identity theft would be my one of my biggest concerns about posting information to the internet due to the frequency and ease hackers gain access to someone's account. It's a scary idea to think that these hackers or sexual predators or government officials, etc are able to check in on you and gain access to some of your personal stuff without you even knowing. The internet and technology makes it so much easier to do this because the person checking out my information could be 1 to 1000 miles away and I would have absolutely no idea what they were doing. I think since I've had my identity stolen from online hackers, I'm more cautious about what I do, but I still do it.
ReplyDeleteI think bringing up FB is a good way that we are in the "tower" looking at everyone else. We can be the people that can watch someone's life (well what they post on FB) without their knowledge. The internet just allows for everyone (some with more privileges and access than others) to do "research" on others.
I agree with the idea of panopticon. With the overwhelming expansion of the internet, the online security has become a problem that is hard to avoid. As more technologies are invented or started to be used online, insecurities are even harder to prevent, and even just to recognize its presence. We might be monitored and our private information might be leaked.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, we are all seeking ways to protect ourselves online. For example, I don’t purchase stuff and pay online in the insecure wifi, such as UA public. I prefer UA wifi, just in case some will see my private information, for example, my card number. Also, I seldom post my private information online, and if I do, I will always add a restriction on strangers. What’s more, if I go to a unfamiliar website, I won’t fill out my personal information.
-Duoduo D.
I agree with the idea of panopticon. With the overwhelming expansion of the internet, the online security has become a problem that is hard to avoid. As more technologies are invented or started to be used online, insecurities are even harder to prevent, and even just to recognize its presence. We might be monitored and our private information might be leaked.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, we are all seeking ways to protect ourselves online. For example, I don’t purchase stuff and pay online in the insecure wifi, such as UA public. I prefer UA wifi, just in case some will see my private information, for example, my card number. Also, I seldom post my private information online, and if I do, I will always add a restriction on strangers. What’s more, if I go to a unfamiliar website, I won’t fill out my personal information.
-Duoduo
Increasingly, the computer, and more specifically the internet, becomes more integrated and influential in our lives. It is the place where we connect with other people, whether the networks are near or far, specific or broad. It is the place where we gain more information about our world, past, present, products, future, ideas. It is also the place where we buy our items, and consume media in the form of visual art, video, and audio. In a world like today, living without the internet would be disastrously inconvenient. It is in some respects essential to our way of life.
ReplyDeleteWhat is scary, though, is that everything is trackable. What we research, what we buy, what we watch, what we download. Even the things that we say to other people, which we expect to be between two people only, can be traced and read by others. This knowledge, if a person is extremely aware of it, can be very limiting in the way that the panopticon is described. If a person is aware, and afraid of getting in trouble enough, he or she would watch everything he or she searches, types, or buy.
I, on the other hand, don't really think about it. I guess what makes me feel safe enough to say what I feel and buy what I want is the anonymity that the mass provides. I feel that, although I am not perfectly in line with what we are "supposed" to do always, I never stray from that line far enough to cause someone to watch me. I do take basic precautions, the things that people always tell me to do: always log off if I'm using a public computer, always check that a website is secure before I buy something online, always post pictures that I wouldn't mind my parents and teachers viewing (I don't have "bad" pictures anyway), don't give out personal information to random people on the internet. Although there are times when I have to research embarassing topics here and there, I do not mind family and friends knowing about it. Overall . . . I feel safe because of the anonymity that the mass brings, yet I do not have much to hide anyways.
In recent years, the world has progressed to a point where virtually everything is done through the Internet. Social networking sites make it easy for friends to communicate with each other without leaving the comfort of their homes. Many high school and college courses are also offered online, and even real classrooms require Internet components. The Worldwide Web has become a source of all kinds of information, and some say that books and hardcopies of text are on their way to extinction. However, it is important to realize that the Internet is public, and that once something is posted online, it can never truly be "erased". Due to this, it is very important to exercise caution when expressing oneself in the virtual world. Many things on the Internet are text, not accompanied with any audio, and because of this wording is important (in order to distinguish between sarcasm and actual beliefs). What's more, nearly all opinions are met with opposition, since so many people are exposed to them, and this often leads to arguments.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I try to self-surveil my own actions by analyzing how my posts will be received by other people. If I feel that a particular comment could be misinterpreted or lead to conflict, I try to either use clearer wording, or simply avoid commenting at all. Being polite and respectful to other Internet-users, is also important in order to project a positive image of myself. Thus, proper etiquette is vital.
We truly are in the technological era. It seems that virtually everything is done via computer/internet these days. Self-surveiling your online behavior may be difficult at times. Online education, social networking, online banking. These are just some of the services I use the internet for every day.
ReplyDeleteWith new computer hardware hitting the shelves every week, staying up-to-date is impossible. Software updates seem to be a part of everyday computer maintenance so it can be hard knowing who to trust when you click the “download button.” Along with convenience, the technological era also gave rise to new forms of identity and credit card theft. Spyware and adware programs make it very convenient for others to access your personal information and potentially steel it if it is left unprotected. The internet is a very public place that everyone in the world has access too. For this reason, the internet is like writing in ink—what gets posted is never truly erased. I monitor my online behavior very carefully to make sure my personal information stays personal and my reputation does not become tarnished because of a ridiculous blog or an outrageous picture. I take caution to not shop at unsecure websites or click on any suspicious pop-ups. This is the most common way to pick up spyware or adware that have the potential to steel your credit card information. Also I never give out my social security number, use my real name, or give out my address to prevent identity theft. When I am social networking or blogging, I am sure to respect other people’s opinions and comments. Just like in a normal face-to-face conversation, being polite gives good credibility to the speaker.